Where were the rights of the people under the new Confederacy?

No right to choose constitutions and laws is to be extended to the people. Their masters, the politicians, in the Southern Confederacy, did not even allow them to vote for President and Vice President. These secession politicians are afraid of the vote of the people. The restraints thrown upon their ambition for office and the power to rule, under the Government of the United States by the popular vote, had been a sore affliction and mortification, which they are determined to avoid in the new confederacy by excluding the people from the privileges of freemen – from choosing from their own officers and institutions.

*The April 9, 1861 issue of the Staunton Spectator claimed that the piece came from the Fincastle Democrat, but that may have been an error. According to the link used above for the Democrat, that paper ceased publication in 1858.

Robert, I’m a little bewildered by the dates here. I clicked through on the “Fincastle Democrat” link, and the info there has the following “Dates of publication:
1834-1858 ” yet this quote is dated 1861…… ???

Good catch. I should probably change that link. The passage above was used in the Staunton Spectator on April 9, 1861, and they cite the Fincastle Democrat. I wonder if they made an error and cited the wrong paper.

The slave states did have popular elections for delegates to the secession conventions; in the border states, this made a difference, obviously, as secession didn’t happen right away with (conditional) Unionist delegates in the majorities. Popular votes on secession beyond Texas would have been nice, yes, but then again, the public doesn’t vote on every law that the state legislature passes; the public only votes for the members thereof, much like those conventions.

In regard to Pres and VP, hindsight says that the CSA could have held elections, but at the time, they were preparing for war at any moment and needed a Commander-In-Chief. Something had to be done, and the Revolutionary model of the Continental Congress was sketchy at best; a compromise of one year’s worth of provisional unelected Pres/VP allowed citizens to vote without waiting too long, although the goal of political unity somewhat squelched true opposition from the beginning, yes.

Given the time and situation, I would not classify these acts as “anti-democratic”. Surely the voting opportunities and suffrage rights were reduced in the CSA compared to most Northern states, but “less democratic” doesn’t mean “anti-democratic”. If you were to say that not accepting the results of the 1860 election qualifies as “anti-democratic”, then you would also have to argue that secession was illegal, which is a whole different direction.

While what you say is fundamentally true about what may have been seen (by those involved in the process) as necessary to get the Confederacy on its feet, the people were still watching, and making observations, such as the one above. No doubt, this little clip, along with many more that appeared in the Unionists papers was trying to catch the attention of those who thought they were getting a better deal than that which they had as part of the US. But just as much as it was rhetorical pitch, there was also truth in it… and even many in the deep South who had voted for delegates to conventions (such as in Alabama) were still painfully aware of the betrayal of trust placed in those delegates. It wouldn’t be much different than that which folks such as Virginia’s John Minor Botts felt, by the end of April.

So, yes, you have what may have seemed a necessary process by those in power without the say of the people, but that’s not to say that many who had been left out of it weren’t feeling seriously wronged.

In pieces such as these, Virginians who were trying to prevent the secessionist takeover in Virginia were doing all they could to make folks aware that the grass was not necessarily greener on the other side.

Could not putting on the facade of being democratic in process be construed, at times, as anti-democratic? The actions do, after all, prove those who carry out these actions as contrary to the process. Take Virginia’s referendum on secession, for example. Democratic process or meaningless?

I think that’s just politics. How many of our current officials haven’t done or won’t do what they promised on the campaign trail? The stakes were much higher in 1861, but the game was played in much the same way in this respect.

It wasn’t just going back on something along the lines of campaign promises. Some went entirely against the platform on which they ran. In other situations, when voters felt betrayed, it was a matter of different views as to what “Unionist” meant. There was no clear distinction in the variations of Unionism.

Mike,
I don’t think the Arkansas convention differed greatly from the nature of the other state conventions. The underling question we must ask is who voted in those elections, how were the delegates selected, and who did the delegates answered to.

You might look at some of the points made (later in the war mind you) by General Albert Rust in this regard. Rust, as you probably know, was an Arkansas delegate to the 1st Provisional CS Congress and later a general.